Tag Archives: Fake news

When it comes to reports of climate change, I cannot escape
“fake news,” which I define as wholly made up with little basis in
fact. More often than not, however, what I observe are news stories
in which the reporters exaggerate or simply misunderstand the
results of scientific studies.

In a confusing landscape of climate news, it is not easy to know
what to believe. That’s why we need news reporters who work hard to
get things right by understanding the science and conveying
information in a meaningful way.

Key to the effort is figuring out which studies are even worthy
of mention. A huge red flag for me is when I read a report from a
so-called scientist who gathers no original data of his or her own,
but instead grabs information from someone else’s peer-reviewed
report and totally changes the conclusions of the original
author.

Credibility of top climate
stories (click to enlarge)Source: Climate Feedback

“Climate Feedback,” a
website in which climate scientists review the accuracy and tone of
news stories, can help us understand the complexities of climate
and identify reporters who tend to get things right. One drawback
of the website is its focus on a national audience, which leaves
out stories by numerous reporters working at mid-sized and smaller
newspapers and magazines.

Still, I was delighted to see a new article on the website that
looked at the
top 25 climate stories that went viral during 2017. Many of
these stories were new to me, and the analysis helped me to get a
feeling for the inflammatory and untrue nature of some stories
floating around the Internet.

Out of the 25 stories most viewed and commented upon, climate
scientists considered only about half of them to be highly
credible, containing no major errors or misleading descriptions.
Because of its widespread readership, seven of the most-read
articles were from the New York Times, which was rated highly for
scientific accuracy.

Of the top five articles getting the most public attention, all
contained some credibility problems. Among them, an article in New
York Magazine titled
“The Uninhabitable Earth,” was found to be overly sensational
by
Climate Feedback reviewers. Author David Wallace-Wells
intentionally looked for the most extreme conditions imaginable
under climate change scenarios, though he accurately described
several scientific studies. After the criticism, Wallace-Wells
followed up with
detailed notes in annotated format to support his approach.

Another top-five article, called
“Ship of Fools — Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of
‘Unprecedented’ Ice,” was criticized by
Climate Feedback reviewers for its sarcastic tone and omission
of basic facts. Author James Delingpole of Breitbart News seemed to
ignore the idea that sea ice could be pushing south out of the
Arctic as a result of — or irrespective of — climate change. Was
the article intended as a joke? Stories like this, which discount
global warming on flimsy circumstances, frequently get passed
around on Facebook, and they drive scientists crazy. University of
Manitoba professor David Barber explained what happened in a note,
and a
UM news release called the Breitbart piece “stunningly
ill-informed.”

The remaining three of the top five stories — from National
Geographic, BBC and The Atlantic — were described as “neutral” with
only a few problematic issues. The main criticism of the National
Geographic story, which described the effects of climate change on
polar bears, was the apparent suggestion that a specific polar bear
(shown in a photograph) was starving because of climate change,
whereas nobody knows what had happened to that particular bear.

While on the topic of scientific information, I’d like to again
share a source to which I am somewhat addicted. Science Daily is really nothing
more than a collection of news releases from universities and other
institutions where research is being conducted.

These news items, usually approved by the researchers
themselves, are written for nonscientists. They are often the first
glimpse that we can get into new findings. As such, one must be
cautious, because new findings do not always pan out. The website
links directly to the original scientific papers and news sources,
and it sorts by topic, such as “Climate
News.” One can also sign up for email notifications.